Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampires in new york (book)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vampires in new york (book)[edit]

The major rationale for deletion is lack of notability. The article presents no independent sources; in fact, since the article's author appears to be the book's author, the issues of conflict of interest and original research are also in play. If this were an album, I would have already deleted it under speedy criterion A9, but since that's not possible for books, consider this nomination as bearing a strong delete recommendation for lack of notability and verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the somewhat unusual step of adding the author of the book to this AfD, as they were created more or less as a pair and they pretty much cover the same thing. Frank | talk 19:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...And Vampires Invincible, which the creator of the first two also created. I note that two opinions below already lump Vampires Invincible in. Frank | talk 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say verifibility is the major problem here, I'm not sure evidence for this book's publication even exists. Google turns up plenty of matches for "New York Vampire" (which is a completely separate series), but absolutely zero matches for this. Delete - 2 ... says you, says me 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

go to this website to find out where i got the information from:www.davidevans.yolasite.com the reason you cannot find the site on google is that not many people know the site and not many people have visited it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidevans123 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would exactly define why these two articles are not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia at this time. Frank | talk 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher that Davidevans123 put down is "lulu company" which is a vanity press Lulu (company). Even if the book does get published, it probably wouldn't deserve an article. I don't think there's much to discuss here. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Book that will be self-published at some point in the future by non-notable author. I'd also include Vampires_Invincible in the same category. Rnb (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete along with Vampires Invincible and David Andrew Evans. Some 18 year kid advertising his own unfinished books and not really making a secret that its him. Obviously completely fail WP:BK as well as being nothing but self promotion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete both as pure spam, as well as being WP:MADEUP and unverifiable much less notable. His age even keeps fluctuating between 18 and 14. What next.Drawn Some (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've already speedy deleted the author's page, as criterion A7 encompasses people. I've struck it from the nomination above. It does not encompass books, though, and the articles are not written so promotionally as to be blatant spam. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, it completely fails WP:BK (if it is even real) -- Austin512 (talk • contribs 03:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok fine i give up on these pages. but the writer is 14 and not 18 and it is NOT me i just go to school with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidevans123 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both books per nom and article author Davidevans123 above. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.